Pat Dixon to LSLA email list:
The title may have caused many of you to hit the delete button, but for the rest here are my feeble minded thoughts.
Q1: Who is the state chair in Oregon?
A1: I am not sure. National Chair Geoff Neale says its Wagner. The Judicial Committee either said/says its Wagner or they defer to the Oregon Secretary of State. The state of Oregon either says Wagner is chair or that they are not taking a position. The last national convention recognized Reeves as state chair. I have not conducted a complete investigation, and thus far I see compelling evidence on both sides.
Q2: Should LSLA decide who the state chair is in Oregon?
A2: No.
Q3: Then how does LSLA decide which person to put on the state chairs list?
A3: The premise of this question is false. It presumes only one person allowed on the list from a state; the state chair. In the case of Texas, both I and our state executive director Lauren Daugherty are on the list. This complies with the policy that LSLA voted for and and was distributed on this list. The list is not restricted to just one chair from each state. It is clearly beneficial to have participation from people that might be staff members or others that can share institutional knowledge and experience.
Q4: How do we figure out who should be on the list from Oregon?
A4: I made a motion in Sunday’s LSLA phone conference to simply add Wagner. In my opinion, that solves the problem. If Wagner and Reeves can post on the list and share thoughts and advice as the rest of us do, great!! If they bring an internal dispute or lack of decorum onto the list, then there are clear grounds for removal.
Q5: Why didn’t you also move to remove Reeves and/or Burke from the list?
A5: Why? I had no intent of resolving Oregon’s dispute. All I wanted was to allow Wagner to participate. I see no harm if others in Oregon have advice or opinions they want to share if they have a leadership role. Since the leadership is disputed, I see no cause for denying either Reeves or Wagner from participation.
Q6: Why did LSLA vote against that motion and vote for Aaron Starr’s motion?
A6: Because I am an ineffective legislator
Q7: Why did you vote against Aaron’s motion?
A7: First, read Chapter 1 of http://patdixon.org/leading.pdf, or the “Is the Libertarian Party Libertarian?” section of this video at the 8 minute mark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynr06jSpmIc). Then, consider that if you tell Wagner that the matter is “disruptive”, we respect having credentialed Reeves at the LSLA meeting, that we will maintain our position, and while not wanting to inject we still impose conditions and want them to mediate and resolve differences, what do you expect Wagner to do? In my opinion, verbosity impairs clarity and can add fuel to a fire. My attempt was to do something simple and straightforward without excessive and argumentative baggage. I think Aaron’s motion was worse than doing nothing.
Q8: Who should decide who the chair in Oregon is?
A8: The LNC. I believe when there is a dispute like this, the LNC has to figure out who they recognize as state chair. As many of you know, there is a precedent in Arizona.
Q9: Should LSLA decide who is on the state chair’s list?
A9: Not necessarily. Geoff Neale says the state chairs list is owned by the LP, not LSLA. If they want to create a policy and administer the list, cool by me.
Q10: It seems like LSLA is ineffective and not getting anything done. What are you doing about it?
A10: Trying to keep LSLA focused on its core mission; a successful annual conference. From the first LSLA conference I attended in Raleigh in 2004, I have consistently stated that the annual conference is the most helpful thing the LP offers for state chairs. In recent years, some have suggested the scope should increase for LSLA to offer tools and other manner of support between conferences. Who is going to do this? I have not seen anyone step up and deliver. Of course it would be nice to have, but I do not like to make infeasible promises. Let’s focus on what needs to be done. Putting on a successful conference is a lot of work. Many of you remember the Orlando hotel disaster. Then there was the Tacoma disaster, which Ohio bailed us out of. Recent conferences in my opinion have been good but not quite up to par and sparsely attended. LSLA can be effective by focusing on an annual conference that has proven successful and making sure it goes well. Let’s not make additional promises which we fail to deliver on.
Yours in Liberty,
Pat Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas
There is currently an opening for Vice Chair…and the LSLA is discussing doing the vending tables again.
I don’t think it necessarily binds GA party members, but Mr. Bittner is Executive Director of the GA LP and the GA LP may no longer see it as beneficial to have him also serving as Chair of the LSLA. Not sure if that’s actually the case and it’s a GA LP issue, so really none of my business. I was just speculating.
paulie) Travelling next few days, not sure how much I will be online…if anyone needs me for anything time sesitive give me a call.
Geoffrey Neale
2:37 PM (5 minutes ago)
to lnc-discuss
We now officially have a problem.
Staff and the LNC need a discussion list with representatives from all recognized affiliates, IMO. While communications can be performed by including non LSLA entities separately, it’s not ideal.
If the LSLA needs a list that contains only their “members”, and those lists are not the same, then the obvious answer is two lists.
I propose that we take back full administration of the state chairs list, and that it contain only recognized affiliates, and their designees (within a reasonable constraint – perhaps up to five people). Staff will maintain this list.
The LSLA can decide if it wants a separate list, or if it wants to use the LNC state chairs discussion list. If it wants a separate list, I do not think it should be hosted on lp.org.
I am not at this time submitting a motion to this effect, because I do not know the manner in which administration authority over the state chairs list was given to the LSLA. If it was a formal motion of the LNC, then it will take a formal motion of the LNC to change it. If it was some form of administrative decision, then it would not require a decision of the LNC to change.
I would just LOVE to look at years and years of LNC minutes, but I just do not have the time to do so. Anyone who wishes to do this research would be a hero in my eyes.
Please share your opinions.
Geoffrey Neale
I agree.
Minutes of Teleconference Call of Libertarian State Leadership Executive Board
The conference call regular meeting of LSLA Executive Board came to order at 5:01 PM
Pacific Time on January 12, 2014.
Attendance:
Chair Brett Bittner Y
Vice Chair Patrick Dixon Y
Secretary Aaron Starr Y
Treasurer Alicia Mattson Y
At-Large Ken Moellman Y
Invited guests in attendance: Guy Mclendon (LA)
Discussion of 2014 Annual Meeting
The Chair has spoken to Nancy Neale, who has invited him to a call of the LNC
Convention Management Committee tomorrow. He is not sure if he will be able to attend
that particular meeting and asked if other members of the board would like to attend.
Brett is suggesting Friday at 6:30 pm, instead of Thursday night for the business session
portion of the LSLA event. Ken suggested a later time because people want to eat dinner
first. Perhaps providing food at the event would be an option. Candidate training and
county party development workshops may be something we can offer for the non-business
portion of the meeting. Something fun on Thursday night might be good to encourage early
attendance; we would need to flesh out an idea. Alternatively, we can have that on Friday
night after the business portion.
Vendor booths. There will be 24 six-foot tables available. There will need to be some
discussion of whether the LNC CMC backs our selling booths this time.
Ken Moellman wants to help with putting together the non-business portion of the meeting.
We need to find out how much time we are being given.
Set the next LSLA meeting date and time
Without objection, the next meeting was set for 26 January 2014 @ 2000 Eastern Time,
1700 Pacific Time.
Approval of minutes and adjourning of meeting
The minutes were approved without objection at 5:46 pm, whereupon the meeting
adjourned.
Aaron Starr, Secretary
I doubt that will mean much to anyone, but OK. I guess it means Doug is getting off the LSLA email list.
That’s an interesting aspect I had not thought of. I will have to look into that. Does the GA decision bind GA party members acting in their capacity as individuals rather than as representatives of their state? Thanks!
fred: The reason the LSLA believed that there was a coup is because they allowed another group (one with out any legitimate authority) a platform to claim it was legitimate.
me: I dunno about “because.” As I understand BeaverGate, I don’t think anyone disputes that — let’s call it — extraordinary steps were taken by Posse WW. “Coup” may well be pejorative.
f: This is fine–provided they give that same opportunity to anyone who makes such claims or they have specific criteria (preferably available for all to see) of who they will give that opportunity.
me: Again, I agree with your sentiment. I add that it strikes me as highly inappropriate for the LSLA to make such a determination, when the JC and LNC have determined otherwise. I could imagine that the LSLA’s leadership’d be mindful that there is a dispute in OR, and be prepared to change if the situation changes.
Per the LSLA Bylaws, I don’t think withdrawing from the LSLA removes the ability to vote at the next LSLA meeting. The relevant section is Article 3: Membership, which reads:
The practical effect appears to be publicly withdrawing support from the organization, and I imagine, Mr. Bittner ceasing to be Chair, being from GA and all.
I’m curious to see the minutes of the January 12, 2014 LSLA Executive Board conference call, does anyone have them?
What does leaving the LSLA mean? That you no longer get the emails (which you already don’t, but Doug did)? That you can’t vote on replacing the LSLA leadership and bylaws at the next meeting? Anything else?
And many of us are still active in the party. So saying that a large portion of the membership is life members who are no longer interested in the LP tends to give an impression that is not really accurate, although large is a relative word.
Oregon voted last night to thank the Georgia party for their support … leave the LSLA and declare that there will no longer be any representatives to the LSLA from Oregon.
RC,
The reason the LSLA believed that there was a coup is because they allowed another group (one with out any legitimate authority) a platform to claim it was legitimate. This is fine–provided they give that same opportunity to anyone who makes such claims or they have specific criteria (preferably available for all to see) of who they will give that opportunity.
If you or I (or any other member of the LP) made such a claim, would we have an opportunity to be heard by the LSLA? Would we be given a seat on the committee? If not, then Burke’s group was given preferential treatment.
There are many sides to the conflict in Oregon and I don’t believe that anyone with a complete understanding would claim that Reeve’s group has a legitimate claim to the party. I have shared my reasoning on IPR in several threads and so I won’t repeat myself but an underlying question is who gets to decide who the leadership of Oregon is. If it isn’t the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (as defined by the SOS) then I suspect those same members are more likely to reject the group that claims otherwise (in this case the LSLA) then they are to accept the leadership that an outside group tries to force upon them.
There are about 2000 life members out of 13500 dues-paying members.
sm, in your own way, you are doing the same thing as your dad. You have labeled a brother (PD) in a derogatory manner, serving as judge, prosecution and jury.
Don’t you see that your labeling is the same my-way-or-the-highway behavior that seemed to wound you as a child?
Paulie, my dad use to look at my family around the dinner table when a family decision was being made and state
“we are going to have an unbiased vote on this and ….anyone who disagrees with me is obviously biased and so we wont count their vote.”
Can someone check the LSLA manual and see if this has made it into publication?
I received word from Doug Craig the Georgia has voted to leave the LSLA.
I’ve asked the LNC to take the actions I alluded to in this and prior threads. Most likely it will go nowhere.
Fred,yes, agreed. Easily avoided.
Looks like LSLA goes out of its way to pick a fight. “Like them better” might be true, but it seems more likely that they collectively continue to feel that Crew WW staged a coup, and LSLA makes the point even after the JudComm ruling.
RC writes:
“I agree that “preferential treatment” is something to avoid generally. OTOH, it strikes me that such treatment is unavoidable, since we make choices throughout the day, picking red over blue, Coke over Pepsi, etc.”
I think preferential treatment in this case is very easy to avoid. The LSLA simply needs to set criteria for how they choose who is included. If the membership for the LSLA is state chairs then they only recognize the chair that controls the political party (which is by definition controlled by the state) if they have other criteria–then they make that criteria known and follow that criteria.
In the case of Oregon they are claiming that a person who claims to be chair but is not recognized as chair by the state should be invited. Unless they are going to allow everyone who claims to be the chair of their states affiliate in, then they need some other criteria. If one can be deemed a leader (and therefore a member of the LSLA) by merely by making a claim that he/she is the state chair then…….
A political party and party membership are both state constructs that are defined by the state. We may not like or agree with the state laws–but that doesn’t mean we can change the definitions based on some committee.
Does the LSLA want to associate with the recognized state political party or do they want to associate with a group of people because they like them better.
ww: The situation has too many variables to move beyond hypothesis … but many of us will consider the hypothesis highly credible.
me: I’m sure that’s so. So, if others are to be convinced, what’d your SWAG be about how much more than 13K the LP’d be today were it not for the corruption you cite?
In your alternative universe, if there was no corruption starting in 1971, would Gary Johnson be president? Would you be Guv of OR? Would the Cult have disbanded, perhaps with a few small cells around northern ID and on the outskirts of Yuma,AZ?
This seems rather huge, if the stakes are THIS large.
Or, would the 13K be 50K or so?
I’m down with identifying and letting go of corrupt human behavior in all things, including politics. Such quadrupling sounds good, but 50K challenging the Cult seems no more effective than 13K. Lacks critical mass.
Is not the LSLA administrating the the state chairs list that runs on the LNC server? Has not the LSLA been functioning as a related association of the LNC? Including use and administration of LNC resources.
Yes, I addressed this earlier in the thread.
Is not the LSLA administrating the the state chairs list that runs on the LNC server? Has not the LSLA been functioning as a related association of the LNC? Including use and administration of LNC resources.
My point is if the LSLA is going to play favoritism over impartiality then all those who are part of the LSLA are discredited and so is by association, the LNC.
No I don’t except this is part of human nature as an excuse. The Libertarians claim to be the party of principle. But actions are stronger then words.
I don’t think it’s a large portion, and many life members still have an interest in the party.
Pat is LSLA…LSLA Vice Chair in fact, and not a current member of the LNC (committee) at all.
WRT my methods, they get results. When I see other people getting similar results via better methods, I will let them run with the ball.
Mr. Capozzi. I spent a number of years in the LPO from about 1989 until I left around 2005 and I can assure you that Mr. Wagner is correct. I was heavily involved and know the story pretty well. I do not always agree with Mr. Wagner methods by his analysis of the problem is right on target. And there is no need for you to comment because I know you will just drag this out as usual.
RC,
Individuals may have preferences when it comes to candidates for office. But the trick is that if they can’t set aside their bias and act by a set of ethics which says, that while I have an officer position in a political organization I must not give the appearance of being biased between competing candidates within the party. If not then the officer should resign their position.
The party must remain neutral until the party members select the candidates.
The point of cutting ties from such organizations is to sensor their unacceptable behavior. It weakens them and they have to then decide to continue their actions or to modify their actions with less support and more sunshine on them.
No I am not backing off the use of the word hack but I also believe in the concept of redemption and Pat may be on that path. I hope so.
RC
I assert it and will not seek to prove it. The situation has too many variables to move beyond hypothesis … but many of us will consider the hypothesis highly credible.
ww: The same type of behavior that caused some people to start this conflict is the same underlying behavior/beliefs that keep the LP small. That is the cause and effect relationship.
me: I recognize this as an assertion. What I DON’T recognize is proof. Prove it.
sm, thanks for clarifying. I agree that “preferential treatment” is something to avoid generally. OTOH, it strikes me that such treatment is unavoidable, since we make choices throughout the day, picking red over blue, Coke over Pepsi, etc.
PD and LSLA may’ve made a poor choice, and my vague sense is that they have, since they should probably follow the LNC’s lead in acceding to the Judicial Committee, if memory serves how this goat rodeo has unfolded. They don’t strike me as the appropriate institution to fight this fight.
As for cutting their ties, I would disagree with your “should” statement. Institutions make sub-optimal choices all the time. If we disagree with the institution’s decision, need we necessarily severe ties each time they make one?
No. Such decisions involve more ATC calculations and discernments.
Are you backing off your labeling of PD as a “hack”? That’s my primary feedback, that you should consider doing so, explicitly, since such name calling strikes me as highly counterproductive.
Or, you can send him (and all you feel aggrieved by) a flaming middle finger pic…. 😉
That may be the path to the Promised Land, but I admit to being skeptical!
RC
The same type of behavior that caused some people to start this conflict is the same underlying behavior/beliefs that keep the LP small. That is the cause and effect relationship.
Steve M gets it… you can’t remain a leader of a corrupt organization… it either needs to change or you need to leave. If you stay and support it… well then people will know what you are.
RC,
“SM, yes, you may well believe that PD didn’t do a “thorough investigation.” LSLA may not’ve, either. In fact, I can’t imagine that they’d have the resources to do one, as there is a raft of legal issues involved.”
“Q1: Who is the state chair in Oregon?
A1: I am not sure. National Chair Geoff Neale says its Wagner. The Judicial Committee either said/says its Wagner or they defer to the Oregon Secretary of State. The state of Oregon either says Wagner is chair or that they are not taking a position. The last national convention recognized Reeves as state chair. I have not conducted a complete investigation, and thus far I see compelling evidence on both sides.”
I am saying that they shouldn’t give preferential treatment. And they for damn sure shouldn’t use National resources if they are going to do so. But they did, and PD and all others should have cut their ties to LSLA when LSLA did.
My SWAG, though, is there are probably no more than — max — 1MM souls who believe that there is a cult of the omnipotent state, or that that phrase is good poetry.
Far more’d likely think that phrase came from the Unabomber’s Manifesto. 😉
….are you saying….
WW, cause and effect are one of my FAVORITE subjects. The more I look at it, the more I’m convinced that we really have no idea what causes outcomes, particularly in non-physical matters.
But, ever open minded, as you saying that if the LSLA didn’t do this list matter that the LP’d be significantly larger?
I’m skeptical, if so. My guess is the reasons are FAR more numerous and significantly deeper than simple intra-party sandkicking.
But, please, make your cause-and-effect case…..
If people had a bit more discernment about cause and effect, perhaps the LP would not be a tiny 13,000 members, a large portion of which are lifetime members who have no interest in the party anymore.
The flaming middle finger came far later than the original pre-emptive deletion as a state chair in a LNC-sponsored coup.
SM, yes, you may well believe that PD didn’t do a “thorough investigation.” LSLA may not’ve, either. In fact, I can’t imagine that they’d have the resources to do one, as there is a raft of legal issues involved.
Given the propensity for WW to send flaming middle fingers and maintain that that was appropriate behavior would be another reason why a tiny organization and its officers’d steer clear of one side seems kinda wise to me.
Who has the energy to deal with such things?
LSLA and PD may well have made the sub-optimal call.
Whether that makes them “hacks”…dunno…your case thus far is weak to me.
I think you are referring to this:
That was what I was addressing earlier. Do we generate enough commercial return for local businesses in the host city to give two hoots? The D/Roid conventions obviously do since they are pretty big deals. But ours can be a secondary event in the host hotel, never mind the city.
The important point is lower down on the page. The host committee can take money from commercial outlets that is reasonably proportional to the expected commercial return. If I am a libertarian bookseller, and I am not charged too much, or if the charge is based on my sales tax receipts, I can easily prove that I get good return from renting a table. Of course, if you push the rate through the roof, the expected commercial return gets harder to demonstrate, and the number of people willing to pay it falls.
Thanks. Taking a look.
This document seems to be about parties that poll above 5% for president and attract thousands of people to their conventions. I’m not sure how much incentive city host committees have to lay out the red carpet for a meeting of several hundred people that is not tied in to the business and politicial establishment. I know for a fact we are not “entitled” to any share of the federal convention graft unless and until we hit 5% for president, so, obviously, not the next two conventions. However, I’m all for trying, so the more info I can get on this the better.
Stewart Flood has posted on this extensively. I will put it on my to-do list.
However, note “http://www.fec.gov/info/chthree.htm” especially footnotes 11-13 and following
Thus, please post (preferably publicly so others can confirm, deny or add detail) about what can and can’t be done instead.
I don’t know that this will necessarily happen again, but I also don’t know that it won’t.
Given that at least one LNC member knew about the paths well in advance, letting the LSLA sell vendor tables at an LCN convention has to be viewed as an LNC subsidy of the LSLA.
Why is the LNC letting the LSLA sell vendor tables at its own convention? There are quite adequate legal paths to avoid this.
Yes, and there are some other ways in which they get official recognition, as I mentioned. However, I think at this point we are close enough to the convention in Columbus where both the LNC and LSLA will get new leadership that everyone on the LNC (or almost everyone) just wants to punt any decisions about it to next term. I could be wrong, but that’s my sense.
The LSLA is using email list servers hosted by the LNC.
I was deleted from the list and Reeves added, without question, because the entire May 2011 convention scheme was a sham from the beginning, orchestrated by Burke and Starr to try to steal the leadership positions of a party and continue the disenfranchisement of the actual membership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
The LSLA was the first organization to recognize the Reeves group, without speaking with me. M Carling was secretary at the time of the LSLA.
It was done as an attempt at first mover advantage in their ultimately failed coup attempt.
The LSLA budget is around 8k. I guess it is possible that you have contributed to the LSLA, but I doubt it. I think most of that money came from sending vendor tables at the national convention. Perhaps some from tickets to the national meeting, though given the attendance it is more likely they lost money on that. The LSLA does get some official recognition from the LNC, which may need to be reconsidered if we get a better LNC and not a better LSLA coming out of Columbus. But for the most part they are separate organizations.
RC,
Using the national parties resources directly or through any sub-group to pick sides in a state leadership battle without having done a thorough investigation is a miss-use of my past contributions and not a way to encourage me to make future contributions.
If the LSLA or LNC or any other Committee associated with the LNC gives favorable treatment to candidates for public office, candidates for party officers or interfering in state party politics then those Committee members had better be prepared to defend what their Committee did.
Not having done a thorough investigation (thus unable to defend the actions of the LSA) but having discriminated in favor of one side is wrong.
RC
I believe that Steve M is expecting more discernment out of someone who takes a position of leadership.
SM: Pd, hasn’t done a complete investigation, but he has maintained his connection as Vice Chair, to an organization that has not treated the two parties equally. In essence they picked a side.
me: Seems to me people do that all the time. We all associate with people that in some ways we have concerns about, but the situation indicates that we maintain an association based on the best available information, all things considered. We don’t have the time to completely look into our concerns, and our concerns may not be so important in our judgment that we move such an investigation up on our list of priorities.
We do the best we can, iow, exercising the best judgment we can on a moment-by-moment basis, generally staying in the flow of events as they unfold.
You call that “picking sides.” I call that “life.” 😉
Sounds like a good idea.
The LSLA executive board serves at the pleasure of the LSLA members. The LSLA members are the state chairs of the various affiliates. It is my understanding that there will be an LSLA meeting on or about the time of the Libertarian National Convention in Columbus later this year.
Since the LSLA executive board is an outlier on this issue, interested parties may want to change the makeup of that board in Columbus.
I don’t see how it is not clear where the LNC is on this. Hinkle didn’t instruct the national office to treat Wagner group as the affiliate because he sides with Wagner – he doesn’t – but because he recognized that the Judicial Committee supersedes LNC. Neale has followed suit.
If you instruct your LNC rep to vote to recognize Wagner’s group, that will settle the matter? If it was so easy, why didn’t you ask your rep to do so years ago???
The LNC is already in agreement. The LSLA is a separate matter.
I’m going to make a motion at the next LPNV excomm meeting to instruct our LNC rep to move vote to recognize Wagner’s group as the LP of Oregon. That should settle the matter. Then, the SOS of Oregon, most actual libertarians, and the national party will all be in agreement and the libertarians in Oregon can get on with the business of electing Libertarians.
I’m only talking between now and the national convention. After that we’ll see what happens.
paulie
Correction: They are highly unlikely to be met … voluntarily. 😉
They wouldn’t add Wagner because he has conditions that are, shall we say, highly unlikely to be met. But they could remove Burke and Reeves from the list, since they are not there at the request of the actual state chair.
robert capozzi January 13, 2014 at 2:35 pm
Pd: “I have not conducted a complete investigation”
SM: You have just convinced me you are nothing more then a political hack.
RC: Interesting. How so? Please walk us through your logic, for that statement by Dixon just seems reasonable to me.
Pd, hasn’t done a complete investigation, but he has maintained his connection as Vice Chair, to an organization that has not treated the two parties equally. In essence they picked a side. Now, why would they pick a side if they haven’t done a complete investigation? They did it for their own political reasons not for the good of the Oregon Libertarian Party, not for the good of the National Libertarian party.
I stand by my comment. Just embarrassing for Pat Dixon to have supported (even if it was support by neglect) this type of behavior.
It is better that the add Wagner but this is far to long in the making.
Well, I can see which stories get you folks excited…
That was perhaps one of the more insightful observations I have seen in a while.
+1 Paulie.
It may also end up wiping out the dinosaurs.
Ah, yes, excellent comparison.
Perhaps comet, due to the crash and burn factor.
A better analogy than “moon” is ‘follower trojan asteroid’, the wannabe Jupiters.
Well, yeah, except that it’s not just free competition, it’s participation in government elections and the state government has determined which one is Jupiter as a practical matter.
Pd: “I have not conducted a complete investigation”
SM: You have just convinced me you are nothing more then a political hack.
Me: Interesting. How so? Please walk us through your logic, for that statement by Dixon just seems reasonable to me.
Any relation to Steve Miller-Miller? 🙂
Fred Fred @ January 12, 2014 at 9:12 am wrote:
>>There may be only one Libertarian Party of Oregon but there are two distinct groups. <<
The distinction between what Oregon says makes for a "Political Party" and another form of group was VERY WELL MADE and I want to thank you for it.
One perspective I've also found useful is that there are two groups in Oregon in the same way there are two or more objects in Jupiter's orbit. Over time, with competition and a free market (as far as I can tell for folks to join groups/run candidates/make a difference) it's clear which is Jupiter, and which are one of the moons.
Joe
As I understood it that was basically what they decided.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/09/lnc-loses-judicial-committee-appeal-about-oregon/
And:
The Judicial Committee identified the state affiliate as the group that has control of ballot access. However, they did *not* say that they were recognizing that affiliate *because* that group had ballot access.
The LNC does not have the power to determine who the state leaders are. In cases where there are different groups claiming to be the state leadership, the LNC does have the power to recognize which one is the LNC affiliate. Since the LP exists to participate in government elections, it makes sense for the LNC to recognize the group that is recognized by the state. That is what the judicial committee ruled, so that is what we are doing. The LSLA is not the LNC and is going its own route. That route leads me to question the official relatioship between the LNC and LSLA, but I think we are getting close enough to the convention that everyone just wants to let it ge sorted out there.
Wes,
There may be only one Libertarian Party of Oregon but there are two distinct groups. If the only differences concerning opinions of who are the rightful leaders and which are the appropriate organizational documents–then the claim that there is only one group would make sense.
But a group is made up of (and defined by) its membership. These two groups claim different membership. The Reeves group is made up of people who sign a specific pledge and pay them a specific amount of money. That is the criteria for joining their group. This may or may not include people who have joined the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Membership in the LPO is inclusive of (and limited to) everyone who is registered to vote as a Libertarian in the state of Oregon.
Different memberships is equivalent to different groups-even if there is some overlap on our Venn diagram.
What might be useful to recognize is that only one of the two memberships could be considered a political party based on Oregon election law. The Reeves group includes members who are not allowed to be a member of an Oregon political party because they are not electors in Oregon. They are allowed to be part of a political group–but not a Party.
The Reeves group also includes people who are members of other political parties. Since you may only be a member of one political party in Oregon–it is apparent that Reeves group must not be a political party.
A membership may choose who and how they choose to be their leadership and govern themselves. But a group that doesn’t include you as a member has no authority in determining the leadership or your group.
I am in complete agreement that there is only one Libertarian Party in Oregon. As a member of that party (an elector who has chosen to align myself with that party) I also know that the party is not the Reeves group because they consist of a membership that is separate from the membership of a political party in Oregon.
Fred,
The LNC does recognize the group with ballot access, per our JudCom decision. The LSLA does permit people other than state chairs on the list, however, who those people are is normally up to the state chairs to decide.
Pat,
After this large of a mistake in morality, if you had any integrity (which you don’t) you would resign as LSLA vice char and as Chair of Texas. You are clearly playing for the wrong team.
Fred
One error in what you are saying. The Reeves group, through counsel, conceded in open court that there is only one party. In that respect there are two groups, but only one legal organization by their own admission.
If you want to know leadership of the group is, imagine if 3 years ago something was published that was slander by the Libertarian Party of Oregon, who would that person’s attorney serve with papers now that they want to press a claim?
The LNC has been debating this issue using a false premise. They continue to make statement such as ” the leadership is disputed”. This is not accurate.
Tim Reeves is the leader of his group. As far as I can tell nobody is disagreeing with this. Wes Wagner is the leader of his group. Again, this isn’t really being disputed. The only question is which group is the Libertarian Party of Oregon?
This may seem like a subtle difference, but it isn’t. Only one group can enter candidates on the ballot as Libertarian candidates. Regardless of how we feel about either group, the LNC has no ability to change that. The Oregon Secretary of State decides which group has ballot access.
Dixon’s statement, “The state of Oregon either says Wagner is chair or that they are not taking a position.” is more or less true. They have stated that they won’t look at an appeal to who is the party–but they also have listed Wagner as chair and have accepted the governing documents that were submitted by Wagner’s group. In essence Wagner is the chair of the group that has ballot access.
Dixon is completely wrong when he states that the LNC should decide who is the chair of Oregon. The LNC can choose which group they align themselves with. But the LPO pre-dates the LNC and there is nothing in our governing documents that state that the LNC has any authority over how we choose our officers or who they might be. In addition, the LNC has no authority in Oregon’s election laws. Which side the LNC chooses does not change the SOS rules on which group is legally a political party and has ballot access.
The choice the LNC has, is to decide if they want to align themselves with the Oregon Libertarian Party which has ballot access or another group.
Dixon’s premise that the LSLA would be better served if more voices were heard may be correct. But I suggest that if they want to invite people based on this they should probably be either completely inclusive (allow anyone who claims to be a leader) or have some well defined rules about who they do or don’t invite.
Anybody can create an auxiliary Libertarian group and claim to be a leader of the party. That doesn’t give them any real political authority or ability. If the LNC wants to recognize another group they may. But I doubt alienating the group that has ballot access is a good idea for the LNC. The LPO will continue to put forth candidates and represent the registered Libertarian electors of Oregon. The other group will have to petition for ballot access and choose a name that the Oregon SOS accepts (one that won’t be confused with an existing Oregon political party). The only winning move for the LNC is to link themselves with the group based on who has ballot access.
In many states the LNC is fighting hard to gain or keep ballot access. In Oregon, for the LNC to keep ballot access is very easy. All they have to do is recognize that the Libertarian Party of Oregon (the one recognized as having ballot access) is the one and only political party in Oregon they will side with.
if the LNC has the power to determine who the state leaders are and if the state leaders have the power to determine who the county leaders are and if the county leaders have the power to determine who the precinct leaders are.
This is top down….
if the precinct leaders and county and state leaders are elected by party members in the state and then the national level leaders are elected by delegates selected by state party members then
This is bottom up….
so which side are you on?
“I have not conducted a complete investigation”
You have just convinced me you are nothing more then a political hack.
Q8: Who should decide who the chair in Oregon is?
A8: The LNC. I believe when there is a dispute like this, the LNC has to figure out who they recognize as state chair. As many of you know, there is a precedent in Arizona.
The libertarian in me says that power comes from the bottom up not the top down.
Pat Dixon is saying that the LNC a group of 17 and are any of them from Oregon? should decide who the Oregon Libertarian Party leadership should be?
Now if I compare this logic to the logic of Spence….
Spence wins hand down.
Pat you are embarrassing.
I’m always amused at people who declare themselves winners when no one thinks their arguments are worth bothering to answer, some weird kind of winning by default I guess, as if anyone else thinks they won.
Apparently Patty didn’t get the memo that yes, Wagner is the chair of Oregon. (A1)
But then again, LSLA is more of a bad joke than ObamaCare, so that’s not surprising.
No, Patty, the LNC does not decide who the Orgeon chair is–that violates the Bylaws. (A8)
But then again, have you read them lately? Guess not.
Bottom line is this: Patty needs to quit with the Dixon around and simply accept that if he’s gonna continue to waffle like this, then he needs to ask LP-Vermont for some maple syrup to go with it.
LP is still working on big time projects like arguing over who controls their state parties (of a couple of dozen people, many of them social rejects and the chronically unemployed) and email lists. Special olympics clap time! How does the LP help make us more free? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other organizations in the libertarian movement that your time and money would be better spent on. Please quit the LP and so something useful!